Are you saying that Mustard believes Federer, and not Laver, is the GOAT? Or does he just not believe the idea of GOAT is viable?

And, isn't posting style part of what can constitute trolling? There is one million ways to say something, and it seems to me you are never the most diplomatic person. Doesn't that make you, in a sense, a troll?

Click to expand...

No, I think it makes me a man that comes right out and says what he thinks and doesn't care what others may think about it. Diplomacy = long drawn out BS, to back a simple point.

I was putting forward Laver's case for GOAT on a forum where a load of posters put forward Federer's case for GOAT. I was trying to show why Federer isn't the only GOAT candidate. For example, Laver has won 200 tournaments, had 7 years in a row as the world's best player, won 2 Grand Slams and won a Professional Grand Slam. Looking at this data, it is clear that Laver is a GOAT candidate.

GOAT is subjective, anyway. Nobody can actually officially become the GOAT.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. So you were not defending a position you don't believe in, like Lsmkenpo claims you did.

Slowest Wimbledon was in 2002. This year's Australian Open seemed slower compared to previous Plexicushion years. Indian Wells is mediumish paced. Miami is slow for a hardcourt. The US Open is fast for a hardcourt.

Click to expand...

You are avoiding the question, I didn't ask you about specific years.

Are these tournaments generally playing slower over the past decade, Yes or No. Pretty easy for you to answer, you just list the tournament and put Yes or No, no other response is necessary.

No, I think it makes me a man that comes right out and says what he thinks and doesn't care what others may think about it. Diplomacy = long drawn out BS, to back a simple point.

Click to expand...

Call it politeness. There are ways to debate without attempting to offend, which seems to be one of the hallmarks of a true troll according to what you said earlier.

For example, don't you think that predicting that Nadal won't even be within the Top 8 players of 2012 is simply trolling? Either that or pure stupidity. I mean, it's one of those two, and you are not that dumb, agree?

That's what I thought. So you were not defending a position you don't believe in, like Lsmkenpo claims you did.

Click to expand...

Lsmkenpo seems to think that me putting forward Laver's case for GOAT when I don't 100% believe that Laver is GOAT, is me trolling. I think it's me showing how other players apart from Federer could be GOAT.

For example, don't you think that predicting that Nadal won't even be within the Top 8 players of 2012 is simply trolling? Either that or pure stupidity. I mean, it's one of those two, and you are not that dumb, agree?

Click to expand...

I don't know, did the hypothetical poster go on backing this claim with 1000 plus posts on the subject?

I don't know, did the hypothetical poster go on backing this claim with 1000 plus posts on the subject?

Click to expand...

The hypothetical poster is you. You made that prediction, and whether you used 1000 posts to back it up is irrelevant. You made a statement you didn't believe in with the intention to offend Nadal fans, thus you are guilty of the same type of behavior you condemn, and you are not just a troll, but also a hypocrite. Prove me wrong if you can.

No, he believes Nadal is the GOAT he just doesn't have the internal fortitude to come right out and say it, he try to say it with silly stats.

Click to expand...

B.S. Mustard doesn't believe Nadal is the GOAT, and neither do I (or most Nadal fans). I think Federer fans are far more naive in this respect than Nadal fans, because they have the Weeks at #1 and # of Slams in front of their face and can't see beyond them.

Stop pretending. You knew what you were doing when you posted that list. You were not being whimsically ironic. You weren't being cute. You didn't wake up one good morning and think "Hmmm... let me make a funny to lighten up the forum". You were simply trolling and attempting to annoy. Why is it so tough for you to acknowledge it and stop the embarrassment?

Off you go...

Click to expand...

Oh, so you think that was a trolling post, I see, no it wasn't a trolling post, when I make a trolling post about Nadal it is much meaner. That wasn't one of my trolling posts, when I troll it is usually in a thread started by some **** or against some troll account and it is much meaner than that.

Sorry, I hurt your feelings in that thread by not putting Nadal on my list, it wasn't my intention.

i.e. Nadal has cross-over support. That’s a good thing in case you didn't know.

And yes; men's tennis was in desperate need of Nadal! Thank goodness he arrived; otherwise only purists and classists would have been watching the game. Although Nadal has been Federer's kryptonite; in some ways Federer needed Nadal more than anyone and should be eternally grateful the Mallorcan was born.

Cesar needed Spartacus to make for an interesting/contrasting story! Instead of just having slaves and constituents gravel at his feet and adore his gilded gown!

Freedom from stodginess should be appreciated!

Click to expand...

As in Caesar? And you surely meant grovel rather than gravel and toga rather than gown.

Only problem with your story is that during the uprising and ensuing military action by Crassus, young Caesar was serving in the army in Asia, and couldn't return to Rome before 68-69 BC.

Nobody can do that. Including you. You must have the court calibration test results to claim such knowledge. And ITF refuses to publish this information (I tried to get it and failed). Hence, whatever you say if will be highly unreliable opinion without any possitive backup.

Click to expand...

Ah, relying on the absence of official information, to stand your ground?

See, therein lies the problem with your statement. Lack of official information doesn't mean a lack of information altogether.

Regardless of the widely spread beliefs amongst the *******s, that an information is real only if Nadal issues it or it comes through channles, that issue statements *******s consider valid, there is this thing called objective reality. Most of the time it is measurable or can be registered through different means.

The video with the comparison between the speed and the bounce of the courts at Wimbledon between 2003-2008 give such analysys. But even if you are not familiar with the said video, it is easy to register the difference with your own eyes. At that applies everywhere.

Ah, relying on the absence of official information, to stand your ground?

See, therein lies the problem with your statement. Lack of official information doesn't mean a lack of information altogether.

Regardless of the widely spread beliefs amongst the *******s, that an information is real only if Nadal issues it or it comes through channles, that issue statements *******s consider valid, there is this thing called objective reality. Most of the time it is measurable or can be registered through different means.

The video with the comparison between the speed and the bounce of the courts at Wimbledon between 2003-2008 give such analysys. But even if you are not familiar with the said video, it is easy to register the difference with your own eyes. At that applies everywhere.

In extreme cases, you can choose to believe your own eyes.

:twisted:

Click to expand...

Even so; what would be your point

Federer is the most successful player in this homogenized surface era; therefore is reasonable to assume he has benefitted the most from it :twisted:

Lsmkenpo seems to think that me putting forward Laver's case for GOAT when I don't 100% believe that Laver is GOAT, is me trolling. I think it's me showing how other players apart from Federer could be GOAT.

I can't say I've noticed any real difference in general in regards to the tournaments you mentioned.

Click to expand...

If you can't tell the notable difference in speeds across various tournaments in the recent decade I really don't know what to tell you. Either you're just being an ostrich with his head in the sand, or you're just completely blind. And I'm willing to bet it's the former and not the latter.

If you can't tell the notable difference in speeds across various tournaments in the recent decade I really don't know what to tell you. Either you're just being an ostrich with his head in the sand, or you're just completely blind. And I'm willing to bet it's the former and not the latter.

Click to expand...

No, just my observation. When I watch 1990s matches from the tournaments mentioned, I don't think "Woah, this is fast!", apart from some Wimbledon matches with the big serving.